Recommended Posts

When the first primitive savage awoke to it's own consciousness and pointed, grunted or perhaps grabbed an object outside of himself (whether animate or inanimate) the origin of private property was born. This reality goes against everything written in Frederick Engles book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", where he contends that communal property was the primary reason for man's climb to a more and ever advancing state. This is easy to refute. There are plenty of examples in primitive culture where private property was first cause. For example, when the primitive savage fashioned tools for hunting, polished stones for throwing or invented a new means and methods for easing his hard life, he unwittingly made life easier and eased the burden of those around him who were less gifted. Most of the time these others banned around him for "thankful" safety. Others for an unearned demand of ownership of these new means and methods that was not theirs to claim. The owner of his property had to defend his right to possession, at every moment, against merciless groups of jealous fellow tribesmen who were in no way his"mental prodigious " equal. If he won, he became leader or chief and freely taught them how to fashion things for the betterment of all without regard or reward. If he lost most likely he was killed, therefore the tribe losing the benefit of his knowledge and invention. In such a case, the tribe perished of their own ignorance and accord (ancestor worship was the most likely result). If he was over powered he had to, much against his will, distribute his things throughout those with an unclaimed need to his possessions all in the name of the general welfare (sound familiar). If banished, along with his band of brave followers, if any, became more powerful than other tribes and adapted more easily to the harshness of the environment they lived in conquering as much of nature as they could. These people, the followers of "the men with brains" and the things which they were taught over time became ever bigger and advanced tribes, villages, cities and finally modern civilizations.

Of course main line anthropologists find this truth to be hard to swallow and mostly formulate their theories on early primitive man to fit their own pre-conceived notions on the actions, beliefs and religious formations of early man. Engles himself was no anthropologist and formulated his theories quoting freely (often without giving references) from other researches.

The notion of private property as first cause, destroys any belief in altruism, commualism, socialism and communism once and for all times as a false, egregious and empty thrashings of those who find life to hard to bare and must by means of force or legistration receive and be rewarded of the unearned property and possessions of those who would, by their own choice, if left alone, create a world and life worth living for themselves and those who would follow.

Many people will bring up the idea that there have been societies where property rights did not exist at all. It is simply impossible. Some boundary has always existed between individuals, we cannot take up the same space. Two babies notice they can't play with the same toy at the same time very early on.

The idea is brought up that many American Indian tribes did not have property rights. I would agree that they could be different, but NEVER COMPLETELY ABSENT. If that were the case, 5 Indians would hop on a horse at the same time, others would enter your teepee or (home) and make love to your wife, or someone could grab the food that you cooked before you could eat it.

A communist economist argued that within a communist state, some property rights exist, it is not the absence of property rights but the absence of rights to "means of production". He gave the example: If you bake a cake for yourself, all the utensils, oven etc is yours. But if you trade that cake for something with a neighbor, all those utensils and oven become the property of the state.

In our case, with eminent domain, ultimately everything is in fact owned by the state. But for the most part, we have stronger boundaries than most countries.

Again, I would argue that without private property of some kind (some respected boundary between individuals), there can be no society and that there has been no such society, ever.